Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Questions for Alain...

Mike Burns mike at
Wed Jun 6 00:05:22 UTC 2018

Hi Owen,

Simply, no. His motivation doesn't change the credibility of his arguments. They stand on their own.

There is no place and no need for this, especially with the subject line, how could it not be ad hominem?

Attacking the motivation of a person is almost the definition of argumentum ad hominem.



---- On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:40:12 -0400 Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote ----

While I agree ad hominem has no place in policy debates, I think there is validity in this case to attacking the credibility of his arguments based on what is now a visible previously undisclosed conflict of interest. If he had merely proposed or advocated for the policy, it would be one thing, but his intransigent refusal to withdraw the policy despite repeated rejection by the community establishes a pattern of facts which invites scrutiny of his motivations and the credibility of his arguments in light of recent disclosures.


On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:03 , Mike Burns <mike at> wrote:

Hi Andrew,


While I sympathize with your position on the soft landing proposals, and even accepting all the facts below are true, the fact remains that you were attacking the man (ad hominem) by impugning his motivations, not his arguments.






From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:37 AM

To: Mike Burns <mike at>; 'Owen DeLong' <owen at>; 'Chevalier du Borg' <virtual.borg at>

Cc: 'AfriNIC RPD MList.' <rpd at>

Subject: RE: [rpd] Questions for Alain...




Nothing ad-hominem about this – 


Fact – a policy was proposed that the community rejected 

Fact – the community asked for the policy to be withdrawn – multiple times 

Fact – Alain refused to withdraw and then denied that the community had demanded such – despite it being on video

Fact – The policy was some how shoved through – and appealed 

Fact – the appeal was granted

Fact – Alain then slammed the integrity of the appeal committee and accused them of malfeasance – again – that’s on video 


All of this – over a 3 period while railing against people who wanted IP space and doing everything in his power to ensure that people could not GET the space they needed by policy – while also holding a block of space for his employer that remains unannounced other than 25% of it announced by a commercial ASN – while pushing for an audit policy that anyone can clearly see was designed to target specific individuals – and I can name them.


To then turn around and open a broker – while attempting to use policy to swing things like this with no declaration of interest – might be within the rules – but it is in my opinion – shockingly bad ethics and at the very least – shows a total lack of judgement





From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at] 

Sent: 05 June 2018 17:11

To: 'Owen DeLong' <owen at>; 'Chevalier du Borg' <virtual.borg at>

Cc: 'AfriNIC RPD MList.' <rpd at>

Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...


“There’s nothing wrong with being a broker” – Owen


Thanks for that, Owen. 😉

More to the point, there is nothing wrong with a broker authoring policy.

I agree that it’s better to be open about being a broker when authoring policy.


However this thread began entirely as an ad hominem.


+1 to the previous poster who said it’s past time for Africa to get in sync with the rest of the world regarding the IPv4 market.



From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at>

Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>

Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...


There’s nothing wrong with being a broker. However, the SL-BIS proposal is one which brokers stand to profit from. 


Your analogy of the doctor doesn’t apply because the doctor isn’t profiting from it when you stop smoking. Indeed, you’re improved health might actually cost him money. 


This would be more like having the doctor encourage your smoking and then discovering that he also owned a tobacco company. 


Not only is it bad medical advice, but turns out the doctor stands to profit from it if the community takes his bad advice. 




On Jun 5, 2018, at 04:19, Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at> wrote:


Dear M. Alson



Is there a logic arguement in here somewhere? 

Ad-hominem is not logic



After all, yourself have defended broker on this list saying there nothing wrong with it. 



The doctor advise to STOP smoking is still good advice for you, even if doctor hisself is a big smoker.


Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 14:31, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> a écrit :


You have actively supported and fought for the new soft landing policy – to artificially restrict space to entities that need it.  


Now, I’d like to ask – as an author of the soft-landing-bis policy which you have STILL not withdrawn… aren’t you just a LITTLE bit conflicted in trying to create an artificial shortage and make it hard for people to get space – while starting and founding an IP broker in Africa?


Maybe now we understand the *true* motivations behind the soft landing bis policy….





RPD mailing list

RPD at



Borg le Chevalier


"Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" 


RPD mailing list

RPD at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list